Hannu Krosing wrote:
But if you have very few writes, then there seems no reason to do sync
anyway.
I think there is one: high-availability. A standby-server which can
continue if your primary fails. Of course sync is only needed if you
absolutely cannot effort loosing any committed transaction.
Another important factor is the amount of conflicting transactions.
That too, but just the need to do *any* locking on all nodes will
significantly slow down sync replication
If you implement sync replication with locking, yes. But there are
better ways: the Postgres-R approach does not do network locking, but
aborts conflicting transactions just before committing. That results in
much less network traffic (one GCS-message per writing-transaction).
Regards
Markus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
